Yes, the discussion, like many, had gotten sidetrack with half-baked suggestions.
PHEVs to Rule Trucks?
- Thread starter David Towle
- Start date
- Replies 260
- Views 55K
Yes, the discussion, like many, had gotten sidetrack with half-baked suggestions.
Perhaps Stellantis should get better PR hacks
A larger engine has more internal friction so burns more fuel for a given output, and it weighs more which you have to haul around every single mile
The generator only has to provide enough power to replace energy used, so even towing, that is oversized
A larger engine has more internal friction so burns more fuel for a given output, and it weighs more which you have to haul around every single mile
The generator only has to provide enough power to replace energy used, so even towing, that is oversized
Whatever the reason it isn’t on the list. The critical minerals and battery supply requirements will likely have a significant impact on the list going forward.
David Towle
Well-Known Member
I disagree. We saw early on in this forum that the Clarity generator could not support the car adequately with a low battery in the mountains (angry bees). Is our generator maybe 75 kw? For a big truck pulling a trailer you do need probably 200 kw or so. Since the truck's battery is so big I assume they will also keep a larger percent of it in reserve to avoid complaints.
The generator in the Clarity can provide about 60hp to the motor, or 45 kW. Keep in mind that the Clarity generator sends electricity directly to the motor whereas in the Ramcharger the generator charges the battery, which is the sole source of electricity for the motors.
Current specs are peak charging at 175kW and continuous charging at 135kW. Demanding conditions certainly warrant those numbers. It’s good to know that Stellantis didn’t engineer a vehicle to absolute minimum requirements. Otherwise, we’d end up with a truck that functioned like the Clarity.
NorCalPete
Active Member
According to this video (approximately 9:30 minutes into it), Ram executives said the Ramcharger would be available in Tradesman, Big Horn, Laramie, Limited, and Tungsten trim levels with off-road and Sport-themed versions not mentioned. I don't know about the accuracy of this information, but this is the first time I've seen someone mention Ramcharger trim levels (beyond the Tungsten) attributed to Ram representatives.
Thanks. We opted for the Limited trim on the Grand Cherokee. Tradesman wouldn’t be anything we’d consider unless it’s the only model under $80K. The Tungsten has some nice features. It’ll be interesting to see pricing.
NorCalPete
Active Member
I'm also leaning toward the Limited trim but will take a look at the Tungsten. That decision will become more complicated, though, if the Tradesman qualifies for the $7500 tax rebate.
The $7500 credit is now a 2-pronged affair. Half for meeting battery requirements and half for meeting critical mineral requirements. As a point of reference the Jeep 4xe models qualify for $3750. My guess is they meet the critical mineral requirement and not the battery requirement.
A Ramcharger that has a MSRP below $80K, could qualify for $7500, $3750 or $0.
We bought/leased the 4xe prior to the new legislation and received the $7500 credit.
mattheo0118
Member
I reserved a Ram recharge. I have a boat and a BEV truck wasn't going to cut it.
What’s a Ram Recharge?
I have 2 boats. Fortunately, with the private boat ramp being less than a mile from the lakefront property, tow vehicle range is of little concern.
Based on the trademarked names, I guess that truck must be a joint venture between Stellantis and Volvo.
mattheo0118
Member
RamCharger* haha sorry
Interestingly, I was contacted privately by another forum member regarding this very issue.
The claim was that the statement I had made that 2 engines with different displacements producing the same amount of power would consume the same amount of fuel, might not be accurate.
The supporting data to refute my statement contained a number of very specific, assumed conditions. Additionally, there was conflicting information, some of which actually supported my statement.
On 2 occasions, I asked if it was possible for a larger displacement engine to consume the same amount of fuel, or less, than a smaller displacement engine, while both are producing the same amount of power. A Yes or No question, just to see if it was even remotely possible.
The question was never answered.
Robert_Alabama
Well-Known Member
I do believe it is very likely that two engines of the same design of two sizes with the larger one running at its most efficient rpm for a given power output and the smaller one running at a higher rpm to output the same power output will result in the larger engine operating at a lower fuel consumption per unit time.
Above are some excerpts from the private conversation mentioned previously. The name of the forum member has been redacted out of respect for the member who did not want to have the conversation on a public forum. It is presented for informational purposes only.
The conditions under which a smaller displacement engine would be more fuel efficient are explained. The final paragraph describes a condition where a larger displacements engine would be more efficient. Perhaps that’s the answer to my Yes or No question. It is possible for a larger displacement engine to be more fuel efficient than a smaller displacement engine under certain conditions.
Of course, this assumes that the information provided is correct.
Wow, just cannot give that one up can you?
Please do list the vehicles where the manufacturer used a larger engine to get better mileage. Please avoid comparing a 68 chevy to a 2020.
Your commentary is so full of wild caveats as to be meaningless
AS a rule, not in every possible theoretical possibility, but as a general rule, smaller engines are more efficient than larger engines
Because one can in their imagination think of a situation where a larger engine will burn less fuel than a smaller engine does not mean that there is any likelihood in the real world that a larger engine will be more efficient.
Since literally no vehicle manufacturer has provided an option where a larger engine provides better efficiency than a smaller one.
Certainly engines of totally different designs can vary in efficiency such that a larger engine of one design can be more efficient than a smaller one of a different design.
Furthermore, there is no evidence Dodge is using a larger engine because it is somehow 'more efficient' than a smaller one.
The engine in this hybrid is a generator, ever see a portable generator with a larger engine than it absolutely needs to provide its rated output?
No, I thought not.
Truck guys don't want to buy a full sized truck with a 2 liter 4 cylinder, no matter the logic behind it.
Truck guys do regularly buy v6 trucks, so as I said initially, it is marketing.
Truck guys don't want to hear the small 4 cylinder wailing away the 5 percent of the time that it would need to put out its rated output.
Marketing
Please do list the vehicles where the manufacturer used a larger engine to get better mileage. Please avoid comparing a 68 chevy to a 2020.
Your commentary is so full of wild caveats as to be meaningless
AS a rule, not in every possible theoretical possibility, but as a general rule, smaller engines are more efficient than larger engines
Because one can in their imagination think of a situation where a larger engine will burn less fuel than a smaller engine does not mean that there is any likelihood in the real world that a larger engine will be more efficient.
Since literally no vehicle manufacturer has provided an option where a larger engine provides better efficiency than a smaller one.
Certainly engines of totally different designs can vary in efficiency such that a larger engine of one design can be more efficient than a smaller one of a different design.
Furthermore, there is no evidence Dodge is using a larger engine because it is somehow 'more efficient' than a smaller one.
The engine in this hybrid is a generator, ever see a portable generator with a larger engine than it absolutely needs to provide its rated output?
No, I thought not.
Truck guys don't want to buy a full sized truck with a 2 liter 4 cylinder, no matter the logic behind it.
Truck guys do regularly buy v6 trucks, so as I said initially, it is marketing.
Truck guys don't want to hear the small 4 cylinder wailing away the 5 percent of the time that it would need to put out its rated output.
Marketing
There’s a strong possibility that we’ll be buying the truck in Michigan where there is currently a proposal to offer a $2500 rebate for the purchase of new, Union made electrified vehicles.
In a peculiar twist there are also rebates proposed for ICE vehicles as well, for lesser amounts.
In a peculiar twist there are also rebates proposed for ICE vehicles as well, for lesser amounts.
NorCalPete
Active Member
Here is another InsideEVs article about the Ramcharger that includes comments from Joe Tolkacz, Ramcharger propulsion system chief engineer: insideevs.com/news/701194/2024-ram-1500-ramcharger-battery-range-gas-tank/
This part caught my eye:
[snip]
Furthermore, the somewhat chaotic engine revving that’s characteristic of regular hybrid vehicles is no issue in the Ramcharger, it seems. "One of the criticisms of hybrids is that you'll see engine speed flares and things like that," Tolkacz said. "We developed a strategy so that when the driver tips in on the [accelerator] pedal, the engine operation is intuitive. You'll see very typical operation. We have to balance that with efficiency, so it won't be exactly like a diesel or a conventional gasoline engine, but it will be intuitive."
[end snip]
Sounds like they sacrificed some engine efficiency to provide a more traditional rpm experience for drivers (and perhaps to help mitigate "angry bees" scenarios).
This part caught my eye:
[snip]
Furthermore, the somewhat chaotic engine revving that’s characteristic of regular hybrid vehicles is no issue in the Ramcharger, it seems. "One of the criticisms of hybrids is that you'll see engine speed flares and things like that," Tolkacz said. "We developed a strategy so that when the driver tips in on the [accelerator] pedal, the engine operation is intuitive. You'll see very typical operation. We have to balance that with efficiency, so it won't be exactly like a diesel or a conventional gasoline engine, but it will be intuitive."
[end snip]
Sounds like they sacrificed some engine efficiency to provide a more traditional rpm experience for drivers (and perhaps to help mitigate "angry bees" scenarios).